What is wrong with what Steorn is doing?

[CFLarsen]

"BillyJoe", not sure what you mean by "fallen for it". I'm just discussing it an a bulletin board. Can you explain your comment?

They probably advertised in the Economist becuase it has larger circulation, but you'd have to ask them, of course, for specifics on choices that they made. Which journal would you have liked them to advertised in if they advertised in a journal?

Since you (claim to) have contacted them, why don't you ask them why they chose The Economist?

Or aren't you the least bit interested?

 

[BillyJoe]

"BillyJoe", not sure what you mean by "fallen for it". I'm just discussing it an a bulletin board. Can you explain your comment?

An analogy:

Down here, pharmaceutical companies are prohibited from advertising prescription-only drugs. Some pharmaceutical companies get around this by making advertisements that sound like "community service announcements". A particular disease or condition is discussed and the advert ends with advice to see your doctor regarding the medication. Patients "fall for it" if they actually believe that it was a "community service announcement" rather than a plug for the company's product. Doctors "fall for it" if they actually tell their patients the name of the drug referred to in the "community service announcement" instead of telling their patient it was just a pharmaceutical company pushing their product.

Likewise for Steorn and.....

regards,
BillyJoe

 

[Foolmewunz]

Well, we're into month 2 since I signed up to "be one of the first to hear results". They've done nothing but build a forum, to date.

If you think we get into p*****g contests over here, you should drop in.

http://www.steorn.net/forum/splash.html?p=3

They're totally un-moderated, have trolls and sockpuppets and multiple identities (even to the point of playing games with their bots in one thread).
Without mods, they posters just go at each other with high caliber weapons. Seems a mighty strange environment for the scientists who are about to change THE WORLD AS YOU KNOW IT!

Steorn seems to drop a tidbit now and then, EVEN asking the forum community of equals for advice on what their tests should be!!!??? As a whole a very strange approach to things! Since the voice of Steorn in posts seems to be Sean, himself, you have to question why he's not busy working out the test criteria, reviewing the 6000 scientists who applied, or planning where to spend his billions. Instead he's answering what are likely several of his own sock-puppets (definitely can identify several by their spelling errors) or shills.

They've got a couple of debunkers taking the pith out of them who are quite good. I have to admit that the science and math is beyond me, though.

I'm less convinced than ever. And my spiders tell me they feel the same!

 

[Grimoire]

Seems a mighty strange environment for the scientists who are about to change THE WORLD AS YOU KNOW IT!

Everything they do seems strange for a company that claims to have invented a device to change the world as you know it. Just par for the course...

Steorn seems to drop a tidbit now and then, EVEN asking the forum community of equals for advice on what their tests should be!!!??? As a whole a very strange approach to things! Since the voice of Steorn in posts seems to be Sean, himself, you have to question why he's not busy working out the test criteria, reviewing the 6000 scientists who applied, or planning where to spend his billions.

You would think they would simply ask one of those scientists, rather than a web forum, otherwise what was the point to asking the scientific community to help them? Oh, right. Publicity was their goal, not science. My bad.

Instead he's answering what are likely several of his own sock-puppets (definitely can identify several by their spelling errors) or shills.

You obviously don't understand the scientific process.

They've got a couple of debunkers taking the pith out of them who are quite good. I have to admit that the science and math is beyond me, though.

I have a guidline to never get into pithing contests...

I'm less convinced than ever. And my spiders tell me they feel the same!

I trust your spiders at least as much as I trust Steorn.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Nov 10 - Apparently Steorn like to do a press release about once a month.

http://www.steorn.net/en/news.aspx?p=2&id=721

Now they've narrowed down the choice of scientists and will sign contractst by Dec. 1, no doubt in time to get their December press release out.

No mention in the press release whether they'll name the scientists or post their credentials. Any bets?

Check out their forum. Sean has called a party in Dublin on Nov. 27. Seems that while freeing mankind from Big Energy, with no time to devote to getting working models out to the scientific community, the most important thing right now is to get a bunch of believers to fly to Dublin so they can videotape the party.

My incredulity meter is going off the register. Every minute these guys waste in not getting this out there to the public is causing loss of lives. They could be unshackling humanity and they have time to write up contracts and have a kegger! They remind me of my armchair revolutionary buddies in the 60's... Revolution Now! Ummm that is if we're out of grass and no one brought over another bottle of Black Nun or Mateus Rose.

My email inbox is still empty. They ask you to sign up to get news, but then they send us nothing. I'm getting miffed. I was expecting a secret decoder ring by now.

My spiders still smell a scam.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Every minute these guys waste in not getting this out there to the public is causing loss of lives.

One can say that empty criticism about any area of research. Sure, there are opportunity costs associated with everything. In the time it took you to type your empty criticism you could have been saving lives! (for example)

Why not just wait and see what, if anything, they produce, without silly criticism?

 

[Foolmewunz]

One can say that empty criticism about any area of research. Sure, there are opportunity costs associated with everything. In the time it took you to type your empty criticism you could have been saving lives! (for example)

Why not just wait and see what, if anything, they produce, without silly criticism?

Well, because I'm a silly person reacting to their silly claim and their silly attitude and their silly way of handling the greatest leap of knowledge in the past five hundred years. (Not to mention that they won't give anyone enough information to make a serious criticism.)

 

[Zygar]

One can say that empty criticism about any area of research. Sure, there are opportunity costs associated with everything. In the time it took you to type your empty criticism you could have been saving lives! (for example)

Why not just wait and see what, if anything, they produce, without silly criticism?

Not true. If their claims have any ounce of truth, then they have in their hot little hands the greatest discovery of our lifetimes. They certainly are taking their sweet time about getting it out there. Of course, science is patient so I have to agree with you on the "wait and see".

 

[CFLarsen]

Not true. If their claims have any ounce of truth, then they have in their hot little hands the greatest discovery of our lifetimes. They certainly are taking their sweet time about getting it out there. Of course, science is patient so I have to agree with you on the "wait and see".

Steorn's claims will gel into exactly the same as PEAR, GCP, Schwartz, Pons & Fleischmann, Radin, homeopathy, and allllll the other claims of "Big Discovery (coming soon, really!)".

In time, it will be forgotten - or left out - that they have zero evidence. Instead, we will see believers - like T'ai Chi - restate the claims as if they were facts. If it takes distortions, or flat-out lies, is not a problem.

People remember the claim, but forget - or leave out - the refutation.

 

[Zygar]

Steorn's claims will gel into exactly the same as PEAR, GCP, Schwartz, Pons & Fleischmann, Radin, homeopathy, and allllll the other claims of "Big Discovery (coming soon, really!)".

In time, it will be forgotten - or left out - that they have zero evidence. Instead, we will see believers - like T'ai Chi - restate the claims as if they were facts. If it takes distortions, or flat-out lies, is not a problem.

People remember the claim, but forget - or leave out - the refutation.

Precisely.

 

[Horatius]

From their website:

Dublin, 10th November 2006: Steorn, the technology development company, has announced that it has completed its selection process for appointing scientists to an independent jury that will test its free energy technology. Steorn issued the challenge via an advertisement in the Economist to the world’s scientists in August 2006 and received more than 5,000 responses by the deadline of 12 midnight, September 8th.

Steorn’s technology is based on the interaction of magnetic fields and allows the production of clean, free and constant energy. The technology can be applied to virtually all devices requiring energy, from cellular phones to cars.

Steorn will complete the signing of contracts with the chosen scientists by Friday December 1st at the latest.

Sean McCarthy, CEO of Steorn, commented: "We have been thrilled by the excellent response we received as a result of our challenge. We are now confident that we have found the most qualified scientists and we are looking forward to the start of the validation process itself."

Steorn anticipates that testing will begin early in the New Year. The precise timetable for the testing phase will be determined by the jurors, as will the location and format of the test process. Once the testing is complete the results will be made public via the Steorn website www.steorn.com.

So they're still moving forward, but please note, still no indication as to who was in the pool of applicants, who was selected, or when (or even if) this information will be published.

From their FAQ:

Can you identify a recent technological advance that made this invention possible? In other words, was this machine possible a decade ago, 25 years ago or a 100 years go?

The Jury process will prove that the technology works; hence it could have worked 25 or 100 years ago. However the internet has played a key part in making this achievable. Instant access to information (real and unreal) is a key tool that we all use. Also the availability of relatively low cost, accurate test equipment combined with the low cost of computational power has made a significant difference. I do not know how someone could go about this 25 years ago.

So, he needs "accurate" test equipment and "computational power" to figure out that he's getting 285% output? BS.

How long before the first [patent] applications will be released to a larger audience

There are multiple patents on the technology (we continue to file patents). I cannot say when these applications come into the public domain, we are not in control of the patent process.

This right here is bogus. An international patent application, or a European Patent Application (which is what they most likely applied for) is automatically published 18 months after the filing date. If he knows when they filed (and he should!), he can tell us almost exactly when they will be available. At least to within a week or two.

 

[volatile]

Seconded, Horatius.

I wonder why it's been so arduous to find 12 word-class physicists - surely there are more than 12 qualified scientists in their home city, let alone worldwide! They could have made a few phone-calls to Oxford, Cambridge, MIT and Harvard and had a press release with at least an air of authority within a few weeks.

I'm so suspicious of this constant smokescreening.

ETA: I also note from the FAQ that

As everyone knows when you go up and down a hill you lose energy.

- isn't this a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of energy?

 

[BillyJoe]

Depends on what energy you're talking about.
Gravitational potential energy increases as you go uphill and decreases as you go downhill. If you come back down to your starting point, net gravitational potential energy is zero.
However, as you climb uphill and downhill, you convert chemical energy into kinetic energy and heat which are both eventually lost to the environment.

Or something like that.
BJ

 

[CFLarsen]

Precisely.

An example of distortion.

Another example of distortion.

 

[ttch]

Horatius wrote:
-----

From their [Steorn] FAQ:

Quote:
--
Can you identify a recent technological advance that made this invention possible? In other words, was this machine possible a decade ago, 25 years ago or a 100 years go?

The Jury process will prove that the technology works; hence it could have worked 25 or 100 years ago. However the internet has played a key part in making this achievable. Instant access to information (real and unreal) is a key tool that we all use. Also the availability of relatively low cost, accurate test equipment combined with the low cost of computational power has made a significant difference. I do not know how someone could go about this 25 years ago.
--

So, he needs "accurate" test equipment and "computational power" to figure out that he's getting 285% output? BS.

-----

The Steorn CEO has said that they originally discovered the effect when their experimental equipment showed a tiny unexpected energy gain. If that's true, they've since improved their results.

You'd need pretty good equipment even today to measure the excess heat from the occasional neutron-induced fission in natural uranium, assuming you knew to look for it. We've managed to make that work for us.

And who looks for fractional-percent gains or losses outside particle physics? If your air conditioner or DVD player were 0.1 percent more or less efficient than it "should" be, how would you know?

Still not holding my breath.

 

[Horatius]

From their [Steorn] FAQ:

However the internet has played a key part in making this achievable. Instant access to information (real and unreal) is a key tool that we all use. Also the availability of relatively low cost, accurate test equipment combined with the low cost of computational power has made a significant difference. I do not know how someone could go about this 25 years ago.

The Steorn CEO has said that they originally discovered the effect when their experimental equipment showed a tiny unexpected energy gain. If that's true, they've since improved their results.

You'd need pretty good equipment even today to measure the excess heat from the occasional neutron-induced fission in natural uranium, assuming you knew to look for it. We've managed to make that work for us.

And who looks for fractional-percent gains or losses outside particle physics? If your air conditioner or DVD player were 0.1 percent more or less efficient than it "should" be, how would you know?

Still not holding my breath.

Okay, that might be plausible, but then what does the internet have to do with anything? It still sounds like feel-good buzz word obfuscation to me.

And, if the effect was so small when first discovered, how did they notice it at all? As you mentioned, why would it have come up? In physics they expect to look for really small signals, like neutrino interactions, but why would a company trying to make a battery for a cell phone or a camera look that closely?

 

[T'ai Chi]

If your air conditioner or DVD player were 0.1 percent more or less efficient than it "should" be, how would you know?

You do some science.

 

[ttch]

Okay, that might be plausible, but then what does the internet have to do with anything? It still sounds like feel-good buzz word obfuscation to me.

And, if the effect was so small when first discovered, how did they notice it at all? As you mentioned, why would it have come up? In physics they expect to look for really small signals, like neutrino interactions, but why would a company trying to make a battery for a cell phone or a camera look that closely?

The original plan was to find a proprietary way to use the wind to power inaccessible outdoor closed-circuit TV cameras (no solar panels; the Emerald Isle is not noted for its sunny clime). In one interview Steorn CEO Sean McCarthy said that their device looked like "a grandfather clock without a pendulum". My speculation on this is that they wanted to use wind power to lift a weight for energy storage and do away with the battery altogether. E.g., you could drop the weight down the interior of an aluminum light pole. They started by looking at existing small wind generators (using anemometers) and probably tried to avoid problems with mechanical linkage between the anemometer and the weight-lifting rotor by using some sort of magnetic gearing. You might expect a lot of loss with such, so they "over-instrumented" things -- and found something unexpected. The portable battery stuff for cell phones, etc. came later.

Just my speculation. Assuming it's real.

As for the reference to the internet, it might just be buzz, or maybe they found some extra-accurate instrument available on it that they used instead of going to their normal suppliers. It fits but it's more speculation, so I dunno.

 

[CFLarsen]

You do some science.

...and present your evidence.

It isn't enough to say that you "do some science". You also have to show people what you find.

 

[Darat]

You do some science.

You didn't understand the point you tried to respond to.